I will be leaving on Sunday, October 6th to spend most of a week in Doha, Qatar. This will largely be to participate in the International Herald Tribune’s annual Global Clean Energy Forum. My next blog(s) will be based on what I experience and learn at the Forum. (Note: as of October 15th the IHT will formally be relabeled New York Times International).
The following description is from the 2013 Forum web site (http://www.ihtconferences.com/gcef-2013.aspx):
“Sustainability in the new energy reality
The 2013 Global Clean Energy Forum will explore the new energy reality – that of abundant fossil fuels, cooling political sentiment towards renewables and risk-averse investors.
It will examine the new role of clean energy within the overall energy mix, and the complete journey towards a sustainable future which will include cleaner hydrocarbons and nuclear 2.0.” The full agenda and other Forum details can be found at the web site.
Specifically, I will be a speaker in the October 9th interview session labeled ‘The new energy mix’ (details below):
“On-stage keynote interview: The new energy mix
Shale gas, and increasingly shale oil, are changing the dynamics for the whole energy industry – especially in the US, but with global repercussions. What does this mean for renewables?
How will renewable energy prices be affected by the rise of shale?
What part will gas play in the transition to clean energy?
What next for onshore and offshore wind?
What is the place for Concentrated Solar Power in tomorrow’s energy mix?
How can the water energy nexus be balanced?
Dr Allan Hoffman, Visiting Professor of Renewable Energy and Desalination, GORD (Gulf Organization for Research and Development) and former Senior Analyst, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, US Department of Energy (DOE)
Santiago Seage, CEO, Abengoa Solar
Omran Al-Kuwari, CEO & Co-founder, GreenGulf Inc.”
Meetings such as this are becoming more common and needed as renewables enter the energy mainstream.
In earlier blogs I’ve commented on Solar PV and Concentrating Solar Power. Here I will comment on Solar Satellite Power Systems (SSPS). As proposed, such systems would use electricity generated by a collection of solar PV panels in geosynchronous orbit (i.e., an orbit above a fixed point on earth) to power a microwave generator. The generated microwaves would be beamed through the atmosphere to a ground-mounted receiver (‘rectenna’) that would convert the microwaves to electricity that would be distributed to consumers via the terrestrial grid.
This concept first received NASA attention and review in the 1970’s which raised a number of issues which still remain problematic. A small group of SSPS enthusiasts still promote the technology but broad support is lacking.
The obvious advantage of SSPS is its access to unimpeded radiation from the sun without the interference of clouds or atmospheric absorption and scattering. This is partially offset by the need for the microwaves to pass through the atmosphere to the rectenna but presumably a microwave frequency would be chosen with minimal atmospheric absorption. It should also be noted that every step of SSPS is technically feasible and well established – solar conversion to electricity, microwave generation, microwave transmission through air, microwave collection and conversion to electricity, and grid transmission.
Personally, I am not a supporter of federal investment in the technology for the following reasons:
– putting anything into orbit is expensive, very expensive, and until these costs are reduced significantly SSPS will not be cost competitive.
– economics dictate that large SSPS concentrations (100’s to 1,000’s of MWe’s) be placed in orbit. One suggestion I recall is to place a 10 GWe unit in geosynchronous orbit to supply the electrical needs of New York City. In my opinion this is crazy – putting all your eggs in one highly vulnerable basket.
These vulnerabilities include exposure to higher-than-usual radiation levels in space which will shorten expected equipment lifetimes, possibility of collisions with space debris and micrometeorites, ordinary technical failures (with a lot of electricity potentially at risk), and vulnerability to sabotage/attack in the event of international tensions.
– aircraft will need to avoid the beams passing through the atmosphere to avoid any possible impacts to humans from exposure to relatively high strength microwave signals. Birds will be another potentially impacted species.
– the large land areas required for rectennas which would ideally be located in close proximity to cities with large electricity demand.
So, is SSPS a viable option for future electricity supply? Not in the near- to mid-term in my opinion. Long-term may be a more optimistic story. Solar PV costs are now much lower than they were just a few years ago and going down, radiation resistance of solar cells and microwave generating equipment may be improved, the cost of insertion into geosynchronous orbit will hopefully come way down, and small SSPS units (100-300 MWe) may become practical to be considered. The other problems would remain, and terrestrial competition from other renewable electric technologies will increase.
In a time of limited federal budgets R&D investment in SSPS does not strike me as a prudent use of government funds. Nevertheless, I recognize that SSPS has its core of ardent supporters (several came to my office while I worked at DOE) and I hope some of them will comment on this blog with their own views.
In reviewing this blog’s history of Posts I am aware that some will see a contradiction between my strong support for a renewable energy future and my acceptance of the inevitability of fracking for shale gas and oil (see ‘Fracking: The Promise And The Problems’) and my reluctant support for building the Keystone XL pipeline (see ‘Keystone XL Pipeline: A Memorandum To The President’). Here is a bit more of the thinking that has gone into those positions, which make sense at least to me.
In an ideal world I would move as rapidly as possible to an energy system based largely on renewable energy in all it’s various forms (solar, wind, biomass, …..) and reduce our current dependence on carbon-rich fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas). Unfortunately, renewable energy is not yet ready to assume such a role, which will take money and time. We also cannot deprive people of access to energy during the transition period. Today’s global energy system is largely dependent upon fossil fuels (coal and natural gas for electricity, oil for transportation) and changing this picture with its in-place infrastructure and vested interests will not be easy or quick. This puts me in the class of ‘pragmatic’ renewable energy advocates, but one who believes that we can move much more rapidly toward that future with appropriate national energy policies in place. I have commented on the need for such a policy in earlier blogs (see ‘The Beginnings of a U.S. Energy Policy’ and ‘We Need A Carbon Tax’).
One final thought: as I think about this apparent ‘conflict’ in my views I am aware of my strong feeling that, ultimately, the real villain in this piece is ourselves with our insatiable and ever-growing demand for energy services. Some people lack even minimal access to such services and deserve more. Many of us have easy access to such services and need to use that access more wisely. Reducing demand growth and even overall demand would reduce the pressure for new fossil fuel and electricity resources, reduce international tensions, and allow a more stable and rapid transition to the inevitable and highly desired renewable energy future. I hope many others will comment on these complex issues as well.
In recent years the term ‘Grand Bargain’ has been used to refer to the possibility of a budget deal on Capitol Hill between Republicans and Democrats. In an earlier context I used the term, on a limited private basis, to refer to a potential deal on energy policy between Republicans and Democrats following George Bush’s election as President in 2000.
The thought of a ‘grand bargain’ on energy policy suggested itself to me as soon as it became clear that Republicans would be declared the winners of the 2000 presidential election. Having listened carefully to the energy statements by both sides during the election campaign I expected strong White House support for fossil fuels and nuclear but little support for renewables. My only hope was that President Bush would be sympathetic to wind energy as he seemed to be as the Governor of Texas. This turned out to be a forlon hope as energy policy in the Bush Administration appears to have been under the thumb of Vice President Cheney.
The idea of the ‘grand bargain’ was simple: with the Bush Administration unlikely to provide strong support for renewables, and a Democrat-controlled Congress unlikely to support oil drilling in ANWAR (Alaska National Wildlfe Refuge), the deal would have been to trade enhanced and increasing support for renewables for carefully regulated drilling in ANWAR using modern oil drilling techniques. Federal revenue from ANWAR could help support the increasing support for renewables.
I was willing to consider this kind of tradeoff in light of improved oil drilling techniques in recent years and the possibility of limiting the oil drilling footprint in a national outdoor treasure. Most importantly to me it was the only way I could see to get increasing Congressional funding for progress toward a critically needed and inevitable renewable energy future in the next four or eight years under a Republican Administration.
Well, it didn’t happen and strong support for renewables only began under President Obama and still has a long way to go. The U.S. still lacks an energy policy that would create significant incentives for development and investment in renewables, while legacy incentives still provide large public support for mature fossil and nuclear energy. As a result the U.S. is falling behind other countries in manufacturing, marketing, and deploying renewables – e.g., offshore wind. The U.S. Is also not benefitting as much as it could from the associated job creation and other economic benefits. It will take a less obstructionist and forward-looking Congress to change this situation.
I am a long-time science fiction buff as well as a long-time fan of Arthur Clarke’s writing, both fiction and non-fiction. In the non-fiction category I have long been enamoured of Clarke’s 1962 book
‘Profiles of the Future; an Inquiry into the Limits of the Possible.’
Trained in physics and mathematics, Clarke was a lifelong proponent of space travel and in 1945 he was the first to propose a satellite communication system. Ray Bradbury, also an eminent science fiction writer, once said of Clarke: “Arthur C. Clarke is one of the true geniuses of our time. I envy him his brain.”
Arthur Clarke
In his 1962 book, updated in 1982, Clarke talks about the difficulty even the most distinguished people in a field have of accurately seeing what is coming down the road. He gives several examples. It is a lesson I have never forgotten.
His book is perhaps best remembered for the Three Laws he enunciated:
1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist says that something is possible, (s)he is almost certainly right. When (s)he says it is impossible, (s)he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of finding the limits of the possible is by going beyond them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. (note: this is the most widely quoted of the three Laws).
Long fascinated by the themes in Clarke’s book I have collected examples over the years and once even taught a university-level course based on his ideas. My eighteen collected examples are listed below, with my favorite being #18. What is yours?
Failed Visions of the Future
1. “Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons.”
(Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science,
1949)
2. “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.”
(Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943)
3. “I have traveled the length and breadth of this country, and talked
with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a
fad that won’t last out the year.” (The editor in charge of business
books for Prentice Hall, 1957)
4. “But what is it good for?”
(Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, 1968,
commenting on the microchip)
5. “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.”
(Ken Olson, President, Chairman and founder of Digital Equipment
Corporation, 1977)
6. “This ‘telephone’ has too many shortcomings to be seriously
considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of
no value. (Western Union internal memo, 1876)
7. “The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who
would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?”
(David Sarnoff’s associates in response to his urgings for
Investment in the radio in the 1920s)
8. “The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn
better than a ‘C,’ the idea must be feasible.”
(A Yale University management professor in response to Fred Smith’s
paper proposing reliable overnight delivery service. Smith went on
to found Federal Express Corporation).
9. “Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?”
(H.M. Warner, Warner Brothers, 1927)
10. “I’m just glad it will be Clark Gable who is falling on his face
and not Gary Cooper.” (Gary Cooper on his decision not to take the
leading role in “Gone With The Wind”)
11. “A cookie store is a bad idea. Besides, the market research
reports say America likes crispy cookies, not soft and chewy
cookies like you make.” (Response to Debbi Fields’ idea of
starting Mrs. Fields’ Cookies)
12. “We don’t like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out.”
(Decca Recording Company rejecting the Beatles, 1962)
13. You want to have consistent and uniform muscle development across
all of your muscles? It can’t be done. It’s just a fact of life.
You just have to accept inconsistent muscle development as an
unalterable condition of weight training. (Response to Arthur
Jones, who solved the “unsolvable” problem by inventing Nautilus)
14. “Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau.”
(Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929)
15. “Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.”
(Marecha Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure
de Guerre)
16. “Louis Pasteur’s theory of germs is ridiculous fiction.”
(Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872)
17. “The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from
the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon.”
(Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, Surgeon-Extraordinary to
Queen Victoria, 1873)
18. “640K ought to be enough memory for anybody.”
(Bill Gates, 1981)
The above should bring a bit of humility to those of us engaged in scientific and engineering work.
